Interviewees include Robert McNamara, Brent Scowcroft, James Schlesinger and Last Strategic Air Commander-in-Chief Lee Butler. Includes Revelations on "Out of Control" Nuclear Targeting During the 1980s.

The discussion of the Soviet ABM system and early U.S. missile defense programs, Sentinel and Safeguard, leads to the momentous decision to MIRV ballistic missiles. MIRVs would enable the offense to work around and strike targets defended by ABMs. Because MIRVs greatly improved "offensive capabilities" by creating thousands of new warheads, they created a serious arms control problem. Thus, Robert McNamara retrospectively says "I think I was wrong" to support MIRVs when he was Secretary of Defense.

The coverage of détente necessarily focuses on the relationship with deterrence and arms control, capturing well the ambiguity of the U.S.-Soviet relationship. As Kissinger's former deputy, General Brent Scowcroft observed, the purpose was to "calm things down" while allowing both sides to "keep on building systems." The presentation does not clearly show what made that possible: the SALT [Strategic Arms Limitation Talks] I agreement froze numbers of ICBMs for both sides, allowing the Soviets to catch up with the United States in deploying thousands of MIRVed nuclear warheads on the latest generation of Minutemen ICBMs. That the Minuteman force was on a highly risky quick-reaction, launch-on-warning posture is never discussed.9

A major element in these chapters is the growing interest in limited nuclear options, which became codified in National Security Decision Memorandum 242 and then updated and modified in Jimmy Carter's Presidential Directive 59. A key issue was the credibility of deterrence, with advisers from Kissinger to Brzezinski worried that even the "smaller" SIOP options were so huge that they reduced the credibility of deterrence. Although Michael Nacht notes that some worried that creating smaller options could make the use of the weapons more likely, Schlesinger counters that this was "not our view" because the new policy made war less likely (presumably by increasing the dangers).

Interviews with former top officials on strategic targeting policy during the late 1970s provide interesting results. Senior Pentagon nuclear planner Frank Miller argues that U.S. policy had fallen into an "intellectual trap" by taking "what would deter us" and "mirror imaging" it on Soviet policy. Statements by the late Leon Sloss, a State Department official who directed the Carter administration's strategic targeting review, suggest what Miller had in mind: evidence that the Soviets were building underground shelters in the Moscow area suggested that "the leadership was plainly serious to survive a nuclear war." The Kremlin believed that it could "survive and control a nuclear war." Thus, the Carter administration sought to disabuse the Kremlin of that notion by creating "pre-planned" strike options that directly targeted the Soviet leadership. James Schlesinger was critical of the new approach because attacking leadership targets would "destroy all possibilities of restraint," but secretary of defense Harold Brown suggested that the Soviets would be impressed and deterred by the reminder that "they would never survive nuclear war."

The narrative and interviews reproduce the outlook of nuclear strategists during the 1970s and 80s, but do not probe the claims that Moscow saw nuclear war as "survivable." Years after the end of the Cold War, it ought to be worth exploring whether Soviet-era sources confirm, modify, or refute such assumptions, but no such effort is made here. Had the Sandia researchers looked into it, they might have located an unclassified contract study for the Pentagon from the mid-1990s, based on interviews with former Soviet generals. It concluded that the U.S. government "[Erred] on the side of overestimating Soviet aggressiveness" and underestimated "the extent to which the Soviet leadership was deterred from using nuclear weapons." According to the study, the Soviet military high command "understood the devastating consequences of nuclear war" and believed that nuclear weapons use had to be avoided at "all costs." In 1968, a Defense Ministry study demonstrated that Moscow could not win a nuclear war, even if it launched a first strike. Although Soviet ideology held that survival was possible, no one in the leadership believed it. In 1981, the General Staff concluded that "nuclear use would be catastrophic."10

The Pentagon study was buried in relative obscurity until released through the FOIA in 2009. Nevertheless, a valuable and telling summary by John Battilega, an authority at SAIC on the Soviet military, was published in 2004.11 The use of Battilega's evidence could have encouraged a more nuanced presentation of Soviet strategic thinking and facilitated a better understanding of the "intellectual trap" created by misunderstanding Soviet policy. This problem may point to a problem with the interview selection. Although Sandia tried to compensate by including experts like David Holloway, interviews with a few Russians with personal knowledge of Soviet nuclear history may have brought even more credibility to the enterprise.

The Carter administration saw its "countervailing" strategy as one that could terminate hostilities but never saw "winning" nuclear war as a possibility. By contrast, the Reagan administration's initial emphasis was on "prevailing" in nuclear war, which, Frank Miller concedes, was "unfortunate rhetoric." Acknowledging Reagan's anti-nuclear inclinations, the final chapters on the disk show that his administration's strategic modernization programs "fuel[ed] public fears," triggering a nuclear freeze movement at home and a Euromissile crisis abroad, also sparking debate over "nuclear winter." The coverage of Reagan's 1983 SDI proposal is evenhanded, with critics noting that there were "no deployable systems" or a possibility for "comprehensive defense." The last chapter ends with the crisis of the fall of 1983, the "lowest point" in the Second Cold War.

Not a newsblog, Geopolitiek in perspectief, which was launched 15 March 2010, provides background, analysis and comment on world affairs. Some articles are based on less well known but proven historic facts and are therefore of permanent value. These posts are provided with the label "documentaire". Egbert Talens’ documentary contributions were additionally allocated an own label.

Comments of maximum 100 words are welcome if posted with authentic personal details. The webmaster moderates and reserves the right to reject posts at this discretion. Reactions with added value will be published.

Non-Dutch readers

The mission statement mentioned under the blog title reads:

"In an age of media concentration, embedded journalism and political spin, Geopolitiek in perspectiefprovides concise texts designed to paint an independent picture of the changing balance of power in the world and the areas where the struggle for power occurs. The blog, which is open to contributions from guest authors, is particularly focused on the Middle East conflicts and the Israel-US special relationship."

“La guerra contra la democracia” (“The War on Democracy”) is a documentary film made by the Australian reporter John Pilger. The documentary focuses on the intrusion of the United States into political affairs in Latin America, mainly in Venezuela. It shows, through the presentation of documents and interviews, the participation of the CIA in the coups against Hugo Chavez, as well as against Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala and Salvador Allende in Chile. This is a must see to understand events in Venezuela today.

Washington and Tel Aviv lurching toward a war with Iran

In Iran, as elsewhere, US imperialism seeks to counter the decline of its economic domination through a turn to military aggression. While the European capitalist powers have joined in US military actions, particularly with the participation of the UK and France in the April 14 missile attack on Syria, their hopes of reaping a share of the booty from imperialist intervention can never be realized by serving as the tail of the American dog. Inevitably, they must turn to their own rearmament for a struggle of each against all for the redivision of the world. This process is already well under way.Bill Van Auken, 2 May 2018

Debate on US new nuclear weapons strategy

In this edition of The Debate, Press TV has conducted an interview with Marcus Papadopoulos, a publisher and an editor of Politics First from London, and Jonathan Fryer, a writer and lecturer from London, to discuss Washington’s plan to revamp its nuclear arsenal with smaller atomic weapons.

There is No FSA, There is Only Al-Qaeda

If indeed the US ever had a binary choice between supporting the Assad government, on the one hand, or extremists from al-Qaeda on the other, it is clear that in fact the US chose to support al-Qaeda, in the form of Nusra. US planners did so in an effort to topple the Assad government and thereby weaken its main regional rivals Iran and Hezbollah. Unsurprisingly, US intervention in Syria has had terrible consequences for the Syrian people, as the conflict between the rebels and the Syrian army has ruined much of the country. Such an outcome was easy to predict, and yet US planners funneled massive amounts of weapons into the country, typically by way of their Saudi and Qatari partners. Further, living under al-Qaeda rule is not something that Syrians, including Syrian Sunnis, welcome, and yet US planners supported the growth of al-Qaeda in Syria in order to accomplish its own foreign policy goals. It is often claimed that US planners seek to “stabilize” the Middle East. However, the US intervention in Syria serves as yet one more reminder that US policy in the region has sought to do just the opposite, at the cost of great human suffering for Syrians, as it did for Iraqis and Libyans before them.

From zero to hero: how Jeremy Corbyn resuscitated UK Labour against all odds

Jeremy Corbyn is now more popular than Ed Miliband and armed with confidence, direction and a bloody good programme, a miraculous turnaround in no time at all. Whatever happens, the idea that this leader could get thisfar with thisprogramme should shut up the neoliberal left and Blairites within Labour once and for all, shifting what is politically plausible in the UK to the left in the process.Jamie Mackay, 7 June 2017

The Corbyn surge was no fantasy. But what does it mean for the UK?

[The Labour campaign] was grounded in a real social vision that understood and proposed convincing solutions to the continuing legacy of the financial crash, the cruelty of state policies on the weakest that are specific to the UK. John Harris’s documentaries for the Guardian go to the real heart of this bleak reality and the vision for change. Look, for example, at the outdoor Corbyn rally in Gateshead on 5 June (11:16), which was ram-packed despite torrential January-like rain. Here you’ll see the drenched faces of young, old, white, black and a roughly 50/50 gender balance. When such a demographic and in such large numbers supports a manifesto like that put forth by Corbyn, the centre ground has well and truly shifted.

The young, on social media, but also in the streets and real life meetings, are bypassing the old forms of power and patronage and beginning to set a new political agenda. It was they who lead this fight, and they did so not out of radical chic pretentions but with discipline in order to contribute to building a more empathic society.Jamie Mackay, 9 June 2017

Israel and Palestine won’t get a two-state solution under Donald Trump

But they may get something better

The greatest guarantor of a society’s stability, prosperity, and sovereignty is its ability to provide all those under its rule with a genuine sense of dignity and equality.Instead of erasing national, cultural, or religious differences, Israel needs to find an intelligent way to forge a shared future. This future nation would likely need to be transformed into a binational state with significant degrees of autonomy for its diverse citizenry collectively, and robust rights for the individual.Haroon Moghul, December 21, 2016

Bush Military Official: The Empire's Ship is Sinking

Syria conundrum: Russian bear roars as the West slides

… the [S-400] deployment is not merely an act of tightening of Russian air defense. A closer look at it suggests its other significance. Certainly, Russia is not going to use these missiles against IS or any other terrorist organization. The only actors these missiles can potentially be used against are the States involved in Syria.It is, as such, a clear message to them. In fact, the very location of deployment tells the whole story plainly. From Khmeimim airbase - which is only 30 miles from Turkish border - S-400 radar covers Syria, western regions of Iraq and Saudi Arabia, nearly all of Israel and Jordan, Egypt’s northern Sinai, a large part of the eastern Mediterranean and Turkish airspace as far as the capital Ankara.Therefore, it cannot be gainsaid that this deployment has literally turned almost the whole of Syria into a “no fly zone” for US led coalition air strikes.Salman Rafi, 30 November 2015

Mehdi Hasan calls out EU leaders for turning their back on the thousands fleeing conflict

Refugees don’t need our tears. They need us to stop making them refugees

But equally important is responsibility. In all the rage about migration, one thing is never discussed: what we do to cause it. A report published this week by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists reveals that the World Bank displaced a staggering 3.4 million people in the last five years. By funding privatisations, land grabs and dams, by backing companies and governments accused of rape, murder and torture, and by putting $50bn into projects graded highest risk for “irreversible and unprecedented” social impacts, the World Bank has massively contributed to the flow of impoverished people across the globe. The single biggest thing we could do to stop migration is to abolish the development mafia: the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, European Investment Bank and European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.A very close second is to stop bombing the Middle East. The west destroyed the infrastructure of Libya without any clue as to what would replace it. What has is a vacuum state run by warlords that is now the centre of Mediterranean people-smuggling. We’re right behind the Sisi regime in Egypt that is eradicating the Arab spring, cracking down on Muslims and privatising infrastructure at a rate of knots, all of which pushes huge numbers of people on to the boats. Our past work in Somalia, Syria and Iraq means those nationalities are top of the migrant list.Anders Lustgarten, 17 April 2015

“I wish to resign and cease considering myself a Jew.”

…In fact, our relation to those who are second-class citizens of Israel is inextricably bound up with our relation to those who live in immense distress at the bottom of the chain of the Zionist rescue operation. That oppressed population, which has lived under the occupation for close to 50 years, deprived of political and civil rights, on land that the “state of the Jews” considers its own, remains abandoned and ignored by international politics. I recognise today that my dream of an end to the occupation and the creation of a confederation between two republics, Israeli and Palestinian, was a chimera that underestimated the balance of forces between the two parties.

Increasingly it appears to be already too late; all seems already lost, and any serious approach to a political solution is deadlocked. Israel has grown used to this, and is unable to rid itself of its colonial domination over another people. The world outside, unfortunately, does not do what is needed either. Its remorse and bad conscience prevent it from convincing Israel to withdraw to the 1948 frontiers. Nor is Israel ready to annex the occupied territories officially, as it would then have to grant equal citizenship to the occupied population and, by that fact alone, transform itself into a binational state. It’s rather like the mythological serpent that swallowed too big a victim, but prefers to choke rather than to abandon it…